All India Sales Representatives and Marketing Employees Federation v. Regional Labour Commissioner

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(s), Section 2(qq) – Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 – Section 6 – Sales Promotion Employees – Workmen Status – Unregistered Trade Union – Right to Raise Industrial Dispute.

Petitioner, a trade union, challenged the closure of an industrial dispute by the Regional Labour Commissioner, who held that sales promotion employees were not workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Held:

Sales promotion employees, though not workmen under Section 2(s), are covered under the Industrial Disputes Act via Section 6 of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, for disputes related to dismissal, discharge, or retrenchment. An unregistered trade union can raise an industrial dispute, as espousal by a substantial group of workmen is sufficient, per precedents. Closure of dispute set aside; Commissioner directed to reconsider on merits.

Case Citation: 2025:KER:31124, W.P.(C) No. 20038 of 2024
Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice N. Nagaresh
Date of Judgment: April 11, 2025

Counsel: Manu Govind, Rahul Surendran for Petitioner; Anima M. (Government Pleader), P. Jayabal Menon, Rekha Agarwal for Respondents.

Parties:

  • Petitioner: All India Sales Representatives and Marketing Employees Federation, represented by its General Secretary, Kozhikode.
  • Respondents:
    1. Regional Labour Commissioner, Cochin.
    2. Aviva Life Insurance Company, represented by its Managing Director, Gurugram.

Facts:

The petitioner, a trade union, filed a writ petition challenging the Regional Labour Commissioner’s (Respondent 1) closure of an industrial dispute (Ext.P1) raised against Aviva Life Insurance Company (Respondent 2). The dispute concerned the transfer of the petitioner’s members, described as sales promotion employees, from Kozhikode to various distant locations. The Commissioner closed the dispute (Ext.P3) citing that sales and marketing personnel were not “workmen” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, relying on Lupin Limited v. G. Suresh [2007 (4) KLT 1092]. The petitioner argued that this finding misapplied the Lupin judgment and ignored the Industrial Disputes (Kerala Amendment) Act, 2017, which includes “promotion of sale” in the definition of workmen. The petitioner further contended that its members, though titled “Sales Managers,” performed ordinary sales promotion duties, not managerial or supervisory roles. Respondent 2 argued that the petitioner’s members were not workmen, the petitioner was an unregistered trade union, and the dispute was invalid as the employees were not covered under the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976. They also alleged forum shopping by the petitioner.

Issues:

  1. Whether sales promotion employees qualify as workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, enabling them to raise an industrial dispute.
  2. Whether an unregistered trade union can raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act.
  3. Whether the Regional Labour Commissioner’s closure of the dispute (Ext.P3) was legally sustainable.

Holding and Reasoning:

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside Ext.P3 and directing the Regional Labour Commissioner to reconsider Ext.P1 on merits. The key reasoning was as follows:

  1. Status of Sales Promotion Employees:
    • The Court clarified that sales promotion employees do not inherently fall under the definition of “workman” in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as they do not perform manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, clerical, or supervisory work.
    • However, Section 6 of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, extends the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act to sales promotion employees, deeming them workmen for disputes related to dismissal, discharge, or retrenchment.
    • The Court held that the Lupin Limited judgment [2007 (4) KLT 1092], cited by the Commissioner, supported the petitioner’s position by stating that sales promotion employees need not be workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act to raise disputes, as long as they qualify under the 1976 Act. The Commissioner’s reliance on Lupin to close the dispute was erroneous.
  2. Unregistered Trade Union’s Right to Raise Dispute:
    • Respondent 2 argued that only a registered trade union, as defined under Section 2(qq) of the Industrial Disputes Act, could raise an industrial dispute.
    • The Court rejected this, citing precedents like Chief General Manager, BSNL v. Industrial Tribunal [2008 (2) KLT 507], Newspapers Limited, Allahabad v. U.P. State Industrial Tribunal [AIR 1960 SC 1328], and Lissie Hospital v. Labour Court [2021 KHC 343]. These cases established that an unregistered trade union or even a group of workmen can validly raise an industrial dispute, as long as the dispute is espoused by a substantial number of workers.
    • The Court distinguished B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply [(2006) 11 SCC 731], noting it addressed the maintainability of writ petitions, not industrial disputes.
  3. Sustainability of Ext.P3:
    • The closure of the dispute by the Commissioner was unsustainable due to the misapplication of Lupin Limited and failure to consider the applicability of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976.
    • The Court did not address the forum shopping allegation in detail but focused on the legal entitlement of the petitioner to raise the dispute.

Disposition:

  • The writ petition was allowed.
  • Ext.P3 (closure report) was set aside.
  • The Regional Labour Commissioner was directed to reconsider Ext.P1 (industrial dispute) on merits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if the grievance persisted.

Significance:

This judgment reinforces that sales promotion employees can access the Industrial Disputes Act’s dispute resolution mechanisms via the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, regardless of their classification as workmen. It also affirms that unregistered trade unions can raise industrial disputes, broadening access to labor protections. The decision corrects a misapplication of precedent and emphasizes the inclusive scope of labor laws in protecting non-traditional workers like sales promotion employees.

, , , , , ,
  • Sri Malakappa v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company
    Motor Accident Compensation – Loss of Dependency – Husband, though able-bodied, could not be assumed to be entirely non-dependent absent evidence of his employment.
  • ASF Buildtech v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co.
    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 7, 11, 16, 21, 23, 37 – Power of Arbitral Tribunal to Implead Non-Signatories – Group of Companies Doctrine – Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Notice under Section 21 – Competence-Competence Principle.
  • Analysis of the Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025
    The Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025, notified by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), provide a framework for compounding certain offences committed under the Act.
  • Res Judicata in Criminal Proceedings
    The principle of res judicata, derived from the Latin maxim res judicata pro veritate accipitur (a matter adjudged is taken as true), is a fundamental doctrine in civil law that prevents the re-litigation of issues already decided between the same parties.
  • Krishna Kumar Kedia v. Union of India
    Penal Code, 1860, Sections 407, 420, 465, 471 – Forgery and Misappropriation – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Reduced.
  • Shenbagavalli v. Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District
    Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Essential Ingredients – Absence of Proximity and Instigation – Quashing of Chargesheet.
  • Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025
    These rules may be called the Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025.
  • Kerala State Elderly Commission Act, 2025
    An Act to constitute an Elderly Commission for giving guidelines in matters related to the welfare and protection of the elderly and to enable their rehabilitation and to undertake and carry out schemes and activities necessary for making use of their skills and experience for utilizing it for the general public and to ensure the protection of rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
  • Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Welfare Association v. Union of India
    Land Allotment Dispute – Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975
  • Central Bureau of Investigation v. Surendra Patwa
    Administrative and criminal proceedings operate independently; procedural lapses in former do not nullify latter.